Thanks — interesting reading. Distilling the discussion there, below are my takeaways. Am I interpreting correctly?
1) The spillover phenomenon and thus the small number of discrete sizes that are effective without being wasteful — are recognized 2) "I don't think we should plan teh block.db size based on the rocksdb stairstep pattern. A better solution would be to tweak the rocksdb level sizes at mkfs time based on the block.db size!” 3) Neither 1) nor 2) was actually acted upon, so we got arbitrary guidance based on a calculation of the number of metadata objects, with no input from or action upon how the DB actually behaves? Am I interpreting correctly? > Btw, the original discussion leading to the 4% recommendation is here: > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/23210 > > > -- > Paul Emmerich > > >> 30gb already includes WAL, see >> http://yourcmc.ru/wiki/Ceph_performance#About_block.db_sizing >> >> 15 августа 2019 г. 1:15:58 GMT+03:00, Anthony D'Atri <a...@dreamsnake.net> >> пишет: >>> >>> Good points in both posts, but I think there’s still some unclarity. _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
